I'm one of the guys who stayed with Apple, through to the end of their old operating system (very much changed, but still recognizably the old original). About halfway through my latest "old" Mac (an iBook portable, bought in January, 2001) I had it retooled for the OSX system. I then had a combination of a Unix-based system (which was the new standard for OSX) and a capability of accessing the old sysem ("Classic") so I could use older osftware.
What happened was that too many of the many, many software developers (including Microsoft) who either make software usable on Macs or versions of their "standard" software that the Macs can use said it was too difficult to patch up (note the words "patch up" — I'll come back to them later) the old OS software. So Mac did what any rational and successful user friendly manufacturer does (or should do). It took its nose out of whatever bunghole it was comfortable in, and put its team to work. After spending a lot of money and effort at trying to develop a new system altogether, they decided that that was not the way to go, and went on to the unix system. After about 4 or 5 years of use, I find that this was an excellent idea. The new sysem is exceptionally stable, system wise, and has little problems. It also, so far, has been reasonably immune from both bugs and successful malware of all kinds.
My wife and I bought two new Macs last fall, connected them to a home wireless sysem, and had the old Mac retoooled again with added capacity (it is a rather heavy portable, but we use it in a third location in the house). These are the Macs with Intel processors, rather than Motorola processors and we notice the difference. The next OS version, due this summer, will be able to use the Intel processor with either Apple or Windows software (easily interchangeable, I hear). After I let the other customers test it out for a year or so, I'll get it, since by then it should be debugged — I'll also spring, through my internet provider (Rogers, in Canada) for the iPhone which can be used as a remote control for the new Mac. Things should continue to be hunky dory.
I think, in general, without being a techie I am quite familiar with the history and the use (advantages and disadvantages) of the Mac operating systems (plural) as they have evolved. The technology is fine by me. I think that we really don't yet know whether the (on the analogy of the automobile) a system with a planetary gear (the old Model T Fords) and a soft top is the standard, or a system with a hard top and standard gearshift (which evolved into an automatic gear) is the way things will go.
The shift in the automobile took till the 1928/29 model year before Ford, which had been dominant with its model T, caved in, suspended production for a year, and started to build a standard automobile in the face of the rise of GM. Automatic shift came in around the late 1930s and the last prewar models, and didn't become standard till the late 1950s — close to 50 years after the original model T! We are about 30 years into the household computer as a standard consumer good.
I note that the standard you speak of, the IBM-type machine (no longer made by IBM) using Microsoft operating software that has been continually patched up based on the original software, has not yet changed a lot, though the shell around it has changed quite a bit (witness Microsoft's latest release). I wonder who has what part of the anatomy up their bunghole, Apple or the supposed mainstream?
PS: In terms of "bragging rights" postscripts, I didn't start using computer-type devices till the late 1970s, when I had an Olivetti wordprocessor I used at my office and a litle Sinclair I played around with and programmed for at home. I was, however, involved in computer industry strategic development and participated in one of the first national reports in this area in 1971 or 1972. Other than that, zilch.
My wife, however, was the one who made the decision to get into Macs in 1984, when they were first released. She did so because she had worked with IBM mainframes in medical research from about 1963 and 1964 and had observed that one of the major problems of training a large staff to computerize medical statistics was the cumbersomeness of human interface. Therefore, a sysem that had an easy to use windows system (before Windows) was practically appealing to her, particularlly when we hoped that the computer would be useful in educating our youngest child, who was somewhat learning disabled. It worked well, indeed. Our son now is involved with Dell, and our son and daughter are intimately familiar with computers and their uses. Lots of that we owe to the user-friendliness of the original Macs.